Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 23STLC03839, Date: 2024-04-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STLC03839    Hearing Date: April 30, 2024    Dept: 26

Blue Moon Service Corp. v. Wallis Annenberg Center for the Performing Arts, et al.

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND PLEADING

(CCP §§ 473(a), 576; CRC Rule 3.1324)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Blue Moon Service Corporation’s Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint is CONTINUED TO JUNE 11, 2024. BY MAY 21, 2024, PLAINTIFF IS TO FILE AND SERVE A DECLARATION IN COMPLIANCE WITH CRC RULE 3.1324. FAILURE TO DO SO MAY RESULT IN THE MOTION BEING DENIED.

ANALYSIS:

Plaintiff Blue Moon Service Corporation (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action against Defendant Wallis Annenberg Center for the Performing Arts (“Defendant”) on June 20, 2023. On August 17, 2023, Defendant filed an answer and cross-complaint. Plaintiff answered the cross-complaint on November 21, 2023.

Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Leave to File An Amended Complaint on February 1, 2024. No opposition has been filed to date.

Discussion

The Complaint alleges causes of action for breach of contract, common counts, and unjust enrichment with respect to cleaning and restoration services Plaintiff provided Defendant. (Compl., ¶¶9-15.)  Plaintiff now moves for leave to file a First Amended Complaint under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (a) and section 576. Specifically, following the filing of Defendant’s cross-complaint, Plaintiff seeks to allege that bringing those claims is barred by the settlement and release agreement previously reached by the parties regarding Defendant’s property damage claims against Plaintiff. (Motion, Le Decl., ¶¶3-5 and Exh. A.)

A motion for leave to amend a pleading must comply with the procedural requirements of California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324, which requires a supporting declaration to set forth explicitly what allegations are to be added and where, and explicitly stating what new evidence was discovered warranting the amendment and why the amendment was not made earlier. The motion must also include (1) a copy of the proposed and numbered amendment, (2) specifications by reference to pages and lines of the allegations that would be deleted and added, and (3) a declaration specifying the effect, necessity and propriety of the amendments, date of discovery and reasons for delay. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324, subds. (a), (b).)

As noted above, Plaintiff’s Motion is supported by a declaration explaining what new evidence was discovered warranting the amendment and why the amendment was not made earlier. A copy of the proposed First Amended Complaint is attached to the Motion. (Id. at Exh. B.) However, neither the Motion nor supporting declaration “set forth explicitly what allegations are to be added and where” with “specifications by reference to pages and lines of the allegations that would be deleted and added” as required by CRC Rule 3.1324.

The policy favoring amendment and resolving all matters in the same dispute is “so strong that it is a rare case in which denial of leave to amend can be justified. . . .” (Magpali v. Farmers Group (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 487.) However, “[a] different result is indicated ‘where inexcusable delay and probable prejudice to the opposing party’ is shown. [Citation].” (Ibid.) Here, Plaintiff seeks leave to amend the Complaint to address Defendant’s filing of the cross-complaint There is no indication of excusable delay nor prejudice to Defendant.

Conclusion

Therefore, Plaintiff Blue Moon Service Corporation’s Motion for Leave to File An Amended Complaint is CONTINUED TO JUNE 11, 2024. BY MAY 21, 2024, PLAINTIFF IS TO FILE AND SERVE A DECLARATION IN COMPLIANCE WITH CRC RULE 3.1324. FAILURE TO DO SO MAY RESULT IN THE MOTION BEING DENIED.

Moving party to give notice.